Amour

2012

Written and directed by Michael Haneke
Cast: Emmanuelle Riva, Jean-Louis Trintignant, Isabelle Huppert

This year’s winner of the prestigious Palme d’Or is a heartbreakingly beautiful story of the latter stages of life that are seldom portrayed on the big screen.

Anne (Riva) and Georges (Trintignant) are a retired elderly couple whose lifelong love is put to the test when Anne suffers a stroke and her physical and mental condition gradually worsen.  

For those who are familiar with Haneke’s work, a film about a loving married couple may seem an odd choice, but Amour is no sentimental and romantic piece of cinema.  Far from sugar-coating the details or resorting to a portrayal of the couple’s young love in a soppy Notebook style, Amour is frighteningly truthful: as Georges holds his wife’s face in his hands, devoid of emotion and response, the reality of old age cannot be escaped.

This does not only arise from the sincerity of the French veteran actors’ performances (both of whom were honoured at this weekend’s European Film Awards), but through Haneke’s techniques which force you to accept the truth of the situation. For just over two hours, you feel as confined in the couple’s apartment as the failing Anne herself, never seeing the light of day or escaping to a happier past; a few quick flicks of a photo album do little to brighten the couple or the audience’s mood. Each scene lingers, held on those few additional moments, and you find yourself part of the on-going struggle into which this normal couple are unwillingly thrown.

The absence of a soundtrack contributes to this realism; you cannot distract yourself through a romantic melody. Instead, you are obliged to watch every emotion and hear every painful utterance.  The lack of natural light further adds to this confinement and gives a faded tint to each scene, reflecting upon the characters’ fading days.

Riva and Trintignant completely embody their characters to such an extent that they do not seem to be acting; they could be your grandparents, your elderly neighbours or, as is the case for one character, your former teachers.  George asks his wife what she would do if she were in his shoes, and thus Haneke indirectly asks this to the audience itself.  Perhaps you’ll put yourself in the shoes of Eva, the daughter who fails to come to terms with her mother’s condition and the way in which her father handles it, or perhaps you’ll become the partner whose emotional suffering matches that of Anne’s physical distress. The controversial debate on the morality of euthanasia once again finds ground, this time more relatable than ever.

This is a story that affects us all but is rarely given screen-time in our youth-focused culture. With no tricks or thrills, Haneke gives the most realistic portrayal of life’s inevitable and often melancholic conclusion whose power is uncomfortable and unforeseen. When the credits rolled, the cinema was silent.

City of God

"What should have been swift revenge turned into an all out war. The City of God was divided."

2002
Director: Fernando Meirelles
Writer: Bráulio Mantovani (screenplay), Paolo Lins (novel)
Cast: Alexandre Rodrigues, Matheus Nachtergaele, Leandro Firmino

How fortuitous that my DVD player rejected Snatch last night because it lead me to this gem; a trodden upon, blood-stained gem may I add.

In the amidst of youth violence in a São Paola suburb, Cidade de Deus, one child becomes a drug dealer, killing machine and leader of the slum whereas another is an aspiring photographer.

Right from the onset, even if I did wince at the chicken meat preparation, the film is fast-paced, exciting and despite harrowing violence, I couldn't take my eyes off it. It is frighteningly realistic thanks to young talent being scouted from real Rio slums, many of whom improvised the dialogue, and its true nature makes it even more shocking to see young children killing. The good nature of our narrator Rocket, though, makes you compelled to discover his fate.

The film's narrative control is superb, with Rockett taking us through various characters' stories with the use of flashbacks and forwards though the story stays focused and progressive.

Its editing is another highlight with some of the most inventive uses I have seen: sharpening of knifes which start the film and act as a framing device; Li'l Dice growing up to Li'l Z through low-angle shots of him pointing a gun; freeze frames as we are introduced to "the tender trio". Such skills earned the first-time director various Oscar nods including Best Director itself, Editing and Cinematography (the chaos following a gun-shot during Benny's farewell party being a high point) and a BAFTA win for the editing category.

When the credits rolled, I hadn't been rendered that speechless by a film for a while. City of God is a modern masterpiece.

9/10

The Master

"If you figure out a way to live without a master, any master, be sure to let the rest of us know, for you would be the first in the history of the world." 

2012

Written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams

For those of you who have seen Anderson’s previous film, 2007’s brilliant There Will Be Blood, you will most likely recall the 15 minute long dialogue-free opening segment and its captivating portrayal of Daniel Plainview’s life. Jump forward five years and Anderson’s highly-anticipated The Master catches you in just the same way. Instead of down a well, though, we start on an exotic island where World War Two Naval Forces are located and we henceforth gain a intriguing insight into the lives of struggling veterans retuning from service. 

The film initially drew attention due to its supposed depiction of the origins of Scientology. Speaking to CBS, Anderson noted that the film was “loosely inspired by Hubbard” (the church’s founder) and he showed the film to friend and famous Scientologist Tom Cruise (Magnolia, 1999) before its release. This, however, should not be the key talking point of the film but its characters, ideas and ambivalent ending.

Joaquin Phoenix plays the impetuous Freddie Quell, who, psychologically damaged from his experiences, drunkenly saunters from job to job, conjuring up alcoholic potions on his way and attempting to fulfil his sexual longings. He then stumbles upon Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman) , a.k.a The Master, who takes Quell under his wing in the attempt to “cure”  him through his leadership of “The Cause”. 

More of a character study than a plot-driven film ("We're low on story, we're high on character" says Anderson himself), Phoenix and Hoffman’s roles are fascinating and their performances are nothing short of spectacular. Phoenix may play his usual temperamental character but he is so convincing and often funny that scenes without him feel empty. Many are putting Hoffman on the pedestal and he will undoubtedly garner an Oscar nomination, yet I find Phoenix to be equally, if not more, impressive. The leads compliment each other perfectly with the processing scene being their most engaging encounter and hitting the peak of Phoenix's performance. Amy Adams is also a great addition to the cast as she shows Peggy's influence over the seemingly all powerful Master.

Shot in 70mm (highly recommended to see it in this format if you fancy a trip to the Odeon West End), the film is visually breathtaking on the big screen. Dazzling images of the sea contrast with intense close-ups of our characters, accompanied with a subtle and intriguing wood-based score from Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood.

The film is not for everybody though (including my mother who wasn't the best person to take). It’s often challenging in nature by a lack of progressive story line and conclusive end. As Anderson points out, the characters "start the same, and they end the same", which can be quite frustrating for some viewers. 

In my opinion, its only downfall is its ending. Whereas There Will Be Blood’s finale was explosive, shocking and utterly brilliant (“I’m finished” being Daniel Plainview’s final on-screen utterance), The Master fizzles out. At 140 odd minutes, the film is quite long but that would not have been an issue had the intriguing sequences been sustained throughout.  It is testimony to Anderson’s skill, however, that it still remains one of the year’s best films. 

An Oscar front runner? 

As will become apparent over the next few months, I absolutely love Award Season. With a nation-wide UK release of mid-November, The Master is one of the first films to enter the Oscar-sphere, most likely on the part of producer Harvey Weinstein.

Anderson is clearly an actor's director as the majority of his films have garnered Oscar nominations for some of its stars and this will not be an exception. Phoenix are Hoffman are sure to get nods for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor respectively and I would personally love to see Phoenix take away a statuette.

However, is the film itself too unconventional for the Academy?

The latest trailer for Spielberg’s Lincoln, starring Daniel Day-Lewis (who shone in PTA’s last) in the title role, seems a more traditional historical epic that will likely please the Academy the same way that The King’s Speech did; an iconic leader overcoming his difficulties to fulfil righteous acts, blah blah. There Will Be Blood missed out on the 2008 Best Picture to the Coen Brothers’ dark No Country For Old Men¸ and though equally impressive was undoubtedly less adventurous than Anderson’s offering. Life of Pi, Cloud Atlas and The Hobbit seem to be others discussed as Oscar front runners, all of which won't come as a surprise. 

Though the performances are strong, the characters do fail to reach any enlightening conclusion and none are particularly honourable, aspects that may alienate some voters. Hopefully, though, they will honour the individual, creative film-making of Anderson that escapes Hollywood confines to give a thought-provoking piece of cinema.

No matter how it performs in Award Season, The Master is definitely one of my favourite films of the year and I still cannot stop thinking about it.

9/10 

Skyfall

2012
Director: Sam Mendes
Writers: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, John Logan
Cast: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem

I will admit that I'm not the biggest James Bond fan. I've seen a handful of the films and particularly enjoyed Casino Royale but am definitely not a Bond, let's quote all the villains and name all the cars, buff. I hadn't been particularly excited about the Skyfall release until I saw the trailer ("Javier Bardem is in it?!") and started to hear some rave reviews. Therefore, I decided to embrace the Bond hype by booking tickets for opening night, sitting in a packed cinema and revelling at the sight of Skyfall.

The film got off to a brilliant start with a thrilling chase that quickly set the plot into motion. Though not the biggest Adele fan, her bond theme worked very well within the opening credits which, though not as visually intriguing as Casino Royale's, fitted well with the film's themes.

With regards to the cast, I've always liked Craig's portrayal of 007 so no particular surprises there. Dench is great as usual as M, who gets a deservedly bigger role this time which seemingly explains the lack of a strong Bond Girl presence. The young Q (Whishaw) was a good addition, but I found Eve (Harris) to be rather annoying. It is Javier Bardem, though, as Raoul Silva who is the star of the show and the film simply would not be as good without him. He enters the screen in a brilliant fashion, albeit a tardy appearance, and has an overriding presence in each scene, with his personal attachment to M being particularly interesting. His only fault for me is a slight lack of originality. Through no fault of his own, his detention in a circular prison was strongly reminiscent of the iconic Hannibal Lecter scene and one could not help but be reminded of the Joker as Silva takes on a policeman's appearance and brings a humorous edge to the character. This is not to say that Bardem does not deliver a brilliant performance and his acting prowess is proven as he successfully plays a lighter villain to that of the terrifying Anton Chigurh whom he portrayed in No Country for Old Men.

The cinematography was superb and particularly beautiful with the shots of flaming oranges and yellows in the film's concluding sequences. Such visuals and intelligent camerawork, again I must make reference to Silva's arrival, brought a much needed cinematic edge to the franchise rather than simply being a big action-packed adventure film. Its subtle touches of humour were well placed throughout the story and the pacing was almost always appropriate.

With the final scenes referencing the classic Bonds, I think it is about time I watched the earlier films. Goldfinger is already ticked off the list and hopefully many more will be too; maybe they will make a Bond convert out of me yet.

8/10

Summer 2012 at the Cinema

An article I wrote for the student newspaper...

A time for the big blockbusters, summer at the cinema often brings many highs and lows.  From many highly anticipated comic book films to some slated Hollywood re-makes, we take a look back at what summer 2012 had to offer at the movies.

As Selina Kyle warned, a storm did come over us this summer as The Dark Knight Rises thundered through the box office and blew other films aside, including Marvel’s Avengers Assemble, but also left devastation in the wake of a savage act. The power of Christopher Nolan’s beloved Dark Knight trilogy, now hailed as this generation’s Godfather, however, kept cinema goers faith in cinema as he delivered an epic conclusion to the iconic franchise. With an electrifying cast including new additions Tom Hardy as the villainous mastermind Bane, and Anne Hathaway as the sultry Selina Kyle along with Bale’s best performance yet, The Dark Knight Rises was the film event of the season.

Not only was it the summer of the superhero, it was also the time for reboots and ticking both boxes was The Amazing Spider-Man. With the idea of making a fourth film in the Sam Raimi franchise scrapped by Marvel, Marc Webb took up the challenge and successfully put a new spin on the classic comic with Brit Andrew Garfield (who have both recently confirmed a sequel) being the perfect casting for a cooler, more confident Peter Parker. Sci-fi flick, Dredd, also opened to positive reviews and was particularly praised for its masterful visuals and gritty nature compared to Stallone’s 80s adaptation of the comic strip. The Bourne Legacy divided audiences as Jeremy Renner’s portrayal of a new assassin failed to reach the impact of the beloved Damon/Greengrass trilogy but it was the Total Recall re-make that acted as the summer’s loser, disappointing both the public and critics alike.

Ted was the comedy of the season as Family Guy creator Seth McFarlane brought his first feature film to the big screen, overshadowing The Watch, rom-com The Five Year Engagement and American Pie: Reunion, though the latter was still a popular choice. Pixar’s new animation, Brave, may have not have thrilled audiences as much as its previous ventures but still made a position in the summer’s top 10 along with family favourite, Ice Age 4: Continental Drift.

Though the summer of cinema may be over, autumn has even more to bring with the likes of Looper, On The Road and Great Expectations.

Holy Motors

"...for the beauty of the act" 

2012
Director/Writer: Leos Carax 
Cast: Denis Lavant, Edith Scobb, Eva Mendes, Kylie Minogue  

The first film from the French director in over 13 years, Holy Motors is innovative, original and all-out bonkers.  

We follow a day in the life of the mysterious Monsieur Oscar (Denis Lavant) as he travels around Paris in a white limousine for a series of appointments, each requiring a different character transformation. Whether it be a begging old woman, an over-protective father or a dying man, Carax offers no explanations. 

From the beginning clips of the birth of cinema and 

shots of the director himself wondering into a movie theatre, with a boarhound I might add (you get used to unexplained occurrences...), Holy Motors is filled with abundant film references, particularly to French cinema. Kylie Minogue is a tribute to Jean Seberg, Godard’s heroine in the classic New Wave film Breathless and Edith Scobb as Oscar’s chauffer Céline embodies her own character in Eyes Without A Face (keep getting reminded of that film...) when she puts on the very mask from the 1960 horror. Don’t worry, though, Carax slips in a possible reference to the Pixar hit Cars to appeal to the wider audience. 

The style of this film is its best feature as the cinematography are effects often spellbinding: a motion capture suit leaping around a room, the camera swiftly panning around a graveyard, the streets of Paris slowly acquiring a green glow. The music is perfectly paired with scenes and the lyrics of  Minogue’s song (“Who were we? Who were we? When we were who we were back then?”) add to the intrigue and enigma of her character and relationship with one of Oscar’s many identities. 

Many scenes are void of much dialogue but it is the thought-provoking discourses between an alarmingly stern father and his daughter, Oscar and his supposed employer and a dying man and his niece that the film has its most poignant moments. The curiosity that comes with the film’s first half is partly lost during later scenes but Lavant’s brilliant performance of each and every character is so compelling that you cannot switch off. 

It cannot be denied, though, Holy Motors is one strange film. It is perhaps too strange for the average cinema-goer who may not understand the numerous cinematic references and is used to a traditional film structure with explanations of a mysterious plot. Many scenes are shocking, the flower/hair eating fiend that is Monsieur Merde’s (revived from Tokyo) segment is particularly so as he takes the supermodel Kay M (Mendes) into his lair; its peculiarity and lengthy nature easily alienating some viewers. 

Make what you wish of Oscar’s transformations but it is evident that Carax does not want you to over-think this film. You need to forget the conventions of realist dramas and just be transported on this bizarre journey, realising that your questions may never be answered. There is one thing for certain, though: you won’t see another film like it this year.

Eyes Wide Shut

"No dream is ever just a dream."

1999
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writer: Stanley Kubrick
Cast: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack

As part of my ongoing mission to watch all of Kubrick's films, number six on the list was the legendary director's final work, Eyes Wide Shut. After the former five had been northing short of superb (A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey), my hopes were reasonably high despite the mixed critical response.

With these works firmly in my mind, I liked Eyes Wide Shut more than expected as I am aware and highly favourable of Kubrick's style. Though the infamous party scene was extremely, well, weird, it wasn't shocking for a Stanley Kubrick fan. A newcomer to the director's style, though, could easily be a little put off by the film's daring premise. The stunning visuals and ingenious use of music were telling of the director and thanks to the eery single piano notes, I found some scenes, such as when Bill is being followed, to be very tense.

The film's pacing was perhaps a little off and I was surprised that Nicole Kidman did not have more screen time. It was the scenes between her and Bill that I found to be the most interesting and created the backbone of the story, so should have taken up more of the film's plot. That said, Tom Cruise, an actor of whom I am not usually particularly fond, was much more intriguing in the role that I had imagined.

It was indeed my least favourite Kubrick film that I'd seen so far and it was a shame that Kubrick did not finish his career with a masterpiece, but it is still an engrossing and daring picture.

7/10

Rust and Bone

De Rouille et D’os

2012

Director: Jacques Audiard

Writer: Jacques Audiard, Thomas Bidegain, 

Cast: Marion Cotillard, Matthias Schoenaerts

Nominated for the prestigious Palme D’or at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival, Jacques Audiard, director of 2009’s tour de force, A Prophet, returns to the international stage with a simply told yet powerful love story. 

A brief meeting in a night club transforms itself into a strong yet turbulent relationship as killer whale trainer Stéphanie (Cotillard) calls upon the help of struggling single father and aspirational fighter Alain after she loses her legs in a tragic accident.

Free from Hollywood’s constraints and its often sentimental love stories, Rust and Bone is intelligent and fresh as stunning cinematography accompanies the film’s thought-provoking plot and emotional sequences. Cotillard’s terrific performance, particularly compelling when Stéphanie learns of her fate, will most likely garner her a number of nominations this award season but Schoenaerts’ portrayal is equally as honest and moving. 

8/10

Pulp Fiction

1994

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writer: Quentin Tarantino, Roger Avary

Cast: John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Samuel L. Jackson, Bruce Willis 

Jules: Hamburgers. The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast.

...

Jules: Well, if you like burgers give 'em a try sometime. I can't usually get 'em myself because my girlfriend's a vegetarian which pretty much makes me a vegetarian. But I do love the taste of a good burger. Mm-mm-mm. You know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese in France? 

Brett: No. 

Jules: Tell 'em, Vincent. 

Vincent: A Royale with cheese. 

Jules: A Royale with cheese! You know why they call it that? 

Brett: Because of the metric system? 

Jules: Check out the big brain on Brett! You're a smart motherfucker. That's right. The metric system. What's in this?

Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?

Jules: I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.

Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?

Jules: Well we’d have to be talkin’ about one charming motherfuckin’ pig. I mean he’d have to be ten times more charmin’ than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I’m sayin’?

Mia: Don’t you hate that?

Vincent: What?

Mia: Uncomfortable silences. Why do we feel it’s necessary to yak about bullshit in order to be comfortable? 

Vincent: I don’t know. That’s a good question.

Mia: That’s when you know you’ve found somebody special. When you can just shut the fuck up for a minute and comfortably enjoy the silence. 

Butch:[driving back to his apartment after Fabienne forgot to get his watch] 

[shouts] 

Shit! Of all the fucking things she could forget, she forgets my father's watch! 

[normal voice] 

I specifically reminded her - bedside table! On the Kangaroo! I said the words, "Don't forget my father's watch."

10/10

Les Yeux Sans Visage

Les Yeux Sans Visage (Eyes Without a Face) 

1960
Director: Georges Franju

As part of my French film module this year, we are required to study a range of French cinema, including Georges Franju's "Les Yeux Sans Visage". As we studied Les Diaboliques et Godard's new wave masterpiece Breathless last year, I was expecting to discover another classic French gem. In short, I did not.

Acclaimed plastic surgeon, Docteur Génessier, aims to revive the beauty of his disfigured daughter's face by performing radical surgery on a number of young women, kidnapped by his wife. They are brought to a desolate grand building where ominous lighting creates an atmosphere of imprisonment and mistrust as you are initially unsure whether to pity or despise the Génessier family. This eeriness and sense of entrapment, initially created with a proficient right dolly in the opening sequence, are perhaps the only parts of the film I found impressive.

The film is often praised for its tense and haunting nature and though its subject matter is admittedly shocking, the dénouement lacked true progression and the film felt overworked and predictable of the genre. Its old-fashioned air could simply be justified with the fact it was made over 50 years ago, but so was Hitchcock's Psycho, a work that still remains a masterful example of the horror genre that fails to age. Here, we are overloaded with genre conventions; a close-up of a ringing phone, voiceovers as we are introduced to a line-up at a funeral, intensified sounds and melodramatic music. Also, it seems that Franju thought dissolves were the only ways to change scenes.

Many critics have also praised this piece for its visual poetry. You may call the masked Christianne prancing out of the prison that is her home, releasing doves into the air as her father's face also becomes disfigured poetic, I found it tiresome.

Lawless

“I'm a Bondurant. We don't lay down for nobody"

2012
Director: John Hillcoat 

Writer: Nick Cave (Screenplay), Matt Bondurant (Novel) 

Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce, Jessica Chastain, Gary Oldman

Set in crime-ridden Virginia during the United States’ prohibition era, Lawless tells the true story of the bootlegging Bondurant brothers as they attempt to keep their illicit pursuits hidden from the corrupt law. 

Inspired by novel “The Wettest County in the World” in which Matt Bondurant writes of his grandfather and great-uncles’ unlawful ways, Lawless brings together screenwriter Nick Cave and director John Hillcoat (The Road), for the first time since 2005’s The Proposition. Add the stellar cast including the likes of Tom Hardy, Guy Pearce and Jessica Chastain to name but a few, and Lawless has the makings of becoming a modern crime classic. 

Shia LaBeouf, previously known for his teenage and action roles in Transformers, puts in a credible performance as the youngest Bondurant sibling, Jack, who strives for respect from his older brothers, especially the disgruntled Forrest (Hardy). Speaking in mainly grunts and deep undertones, Hardy masters the South-Eastern accent and the audience slowly warms to his violent ways throughout. It is with these two men, though, that the film reaches its first flaw: who is our protagonist? Who are we rooting for? With LaBeouf supplying the narration, he is presented as the lead but many scenes shift their focus onto the formidable and intriguing Forrest (placed in the forefront of the above promo poster), whose romance with ex-dancer Maggie (Chastain) garners more attention that that of his younger sibling’s with the innoncent Bertha (Wasikowska). 

Then comes our villain, Chicago agent Charlie Rakes (Pearce) who aims to stamp out all illegal activities in the area with his eyes sharply focused on the Bondurant boys. Nauseatingly mean, he brings the film its much needed tension but often over plays on theatricality compared to the courageous and invincible Bondurants. 

Visually pleasing and stylishly photographed, the era is caught perfectly on screen with these riveting and (almost) perfectly cast characters, yet their screen-time is often unbalanced. Eldest brother, Howard (Clarke), seems to be merely a space-filler and Oldman’s Floyd Banner, the notorious bootlegging big-shot, is mistakenly under-used. 

The film principally falls short on this lack of direction; the plot, the protagonist, the tone. The dialogue offers some refreshing laughs, particularly courtesy of Forrest, and anxiety builds in the second half but the narrative is lost in the opening hour. When we meet Jack’s innocent friend Cricket (DeHaan) and the Bondurants rise to their heyday, the pace quickens and scenes flow together more harmoniously. The romances are touching but kept rightfully brief so not to steal away from the crime but the outbursts of violence, though impressive and appropriately horrific, are placed sporadically throughout the story and contribute to this rather muddled narrative. Had the tension that we see in the film’s climax been sustained throughout the entire two hours and the dialogue been tightened, Lawless would have been a great watch. 

Verdict: With style in cinematography and fine performances by the cast, Lawless 

could have been one of this year’s best films but is, unfortunately, let down but its lack of focus and disorganised plot. 

7/10

The Big Lebowski

“F**k it, Dude, let's go bowling" 

1998
Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen
Writers: Joel and Ethan Coen
Cast: Jeff Bridges, John Goodman and Julianne Moore

A case of mistaken identity, not to mention a soiled rug, lands free spirit, Geff “Dude" Lebowski, in a whirlwind of chaos as he attempts to return millionaire Leboswki's wife. When films these days involve crooks, lost toes, trophy wives, crazy Germans and many more undesirable situations, they seem ridiculous and excessive, but here, it works. For starters, the Dude is iconic. Bridges' southern drawl, hippie clothing and casual demeanour makes for a funny and loveable protagonist whose Vietnam veteran sidekick, Walter (Goodman) is just as appealing. Add on Donny (Buscemi) and the stick he receives from Walter (did I mention he was in Vietnam?) and the trio is unbeatable - in comedic terms, that is, not in the plot. Don't forget about Philip Seymour Hoffman as Mr. Lebowski's (the rich one) employee either, who is equally amusing.

The film's other key selling point is the witty dialogue. I'll just let some quotes speak for themselves:

The Dude: Let me explain something to you. Um, I am not “Mr. Lebowski". You're Mr. Lebowski.
I'm the Dude. So that's what you call me. You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder,
or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing. 

The Dude: It's like what Lenin said....you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh....
Donny: I am the walrus.
The Dude: You know what I'm trying to say....
Donny: I am the walrus.
Walter Sobchak: That fucking bitch....
The Dude: Oh yeah!
Donny: I am the walrus.
Walter Sobchack: Shut the fuck up, Donny! V.I. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!
Donny: What the fuck is he talking about, Dude?

The Dude: These are, uh...
Brandt: Oh, those are Mr Lebowski's children, so to speak.
The Dude: Different mothers, huh?
Brandt: No.
The Dude: Racially he's pretty cool?
Brandt: [laughs] They're not literally his children. They're the Little Lebowski Urban Achievers - inner city children of promise but without the necessary means for a - necessary means for a higher education. So Mr Lebowski is committed to sending all of them to college.

The Dude: That rug really tied the room together.

8/10

Million Dollar Baby

“No matter where he is, I thought you should know what kind of man your father really was."

2004
Director: Clint Eastwood
Writer: Paul Haggis (screenplay)
Cast: Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman 

I had been looking forward to watching Clint Eastwood's boxing drama, about a tough trainer's decision to coach a committed female boxer,  for months but unfortunately, it did not pack a punch as much as I had hoped.

Though my focus was not completely on the film at the start, I found the beginning to be quite tiresome and not particularly captivating. It took too long for Maggie (Swank)  to begin training with Frankie (Eastwood) and then in a matter of moments she had become a great boxer. It was after Maggie had her accident, though, that the film hit its stride. The plot became more focused and the characters more engaging, with scenes between Frankie and Maggie becoming quite heart-wrenching.

I often find that a film's ending can dictate my opinion on the film as a whole. With the film in question,  the concluding sequences were impressive and I therefore leave with a positive opinion. I did, however, find the beginning of the film to be flawed and a slight disappointment following a viewing of Mystic River several months ago. With the latter, I was instantly gripped with the mystery and intrigue of the film as well as the stellar performances. Did I think Freeman's performance deserved an Oscar? No, not particularly. His voiceover may have added a special something to the film but he failed to significantly grab my attention like an Oscar winning role should. Swank's performance was excellent, and it is her character and evolving relationship with her trainer, leading to unexpected conclusions, that made the film.

Though a different style of film, I found last year's boxing flick, The Fighter, to be a more enjoyable, well-rounded film with perhaps even better performances from the supporting cast.

Rating: 7.5/10 (apologies for sitting on the fence...)

The Amazing Spider-Man

“We all have secrets: the ones we keep...and the ones that are kept from us”

Director: Mark Webb
Writers: Screenplay by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Sally Field, Martin Sheen

(Taken from previous blog written on release)

I had been anticipating the release of this film for several months, no way near as much as The Dark Knight Rises of course (an excitement intensified by the recent behind-the-scenes featurette), but didn't have any particular expectations in mind. I wasn't fuelled by the opinion that this film would be fantastic attempt, or a futile one for that matter, at rebooting Sam Raimi's super-hero franchise starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst so I could just sit back and enjoy; and enjoy I did.

First things first, the star of the film, Andrew Garfield, played a fantastic Spider-man. I'm not going to pretend that his erm attractive appearance didn't help slightly but let's be honest, he's clearly an improvement on Tobey Maguire. Not that this was his only drawing point. Garfield was successful in creating a cooler Spider-Man than Maguire with a bit of  rock 'n' roll edge thanks to his Ramones Tees and Hitchcock posters whilst still conveying that adorable, slightly geeky charm. His love interest in the film, Miss Gwen Stacey, is played genuinely and thoughtfully by Emma Stone but it is her  relation to the Head of Police, attempting to arrest Spider-man, that adds the most interesting element to her character. Perhaps not completely believable as a 17-year-old, I think Garfield's 28-year-old self even achieves this better, but she is not at all as irritating as Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane.

Supernatural villains aren't usually my cup of tea, hence my preference for Nolan's Batman films in which they do not feature. That may sound like an odd statement because Spider-Man has powers but I often find confrontational scenes in super-hero films rather lackluster when powers are just thrown back and forth between protagonists and beings transform themselves into seemingly invincible monsters. Though a few action scenes in this film with the giant lizard, a.k.a Dr. Connors played by Rhys Ifans, were slightly tedious, this villain didn't ache on me as much as usual. His normal persona of a good-natured scientist with links to Parker's father  made the character's transformation into a mad reptile perhaps more affecting.

I haven't seen the original Spider-Man for a while but from what I can remember, this reboot maintains a much more mysterious element regarding the death of Parker's parents, including an after-credits clip foreshadowing the next film's plot. Though both deal with Parker's rise to superhero status, this new offering gives a deeper exploration of how being orphaned deeply affected the teenager.

Though I may in the minority here, I found this Marvel offering to be superior to its previous one (that little known film that's made no money...). Its humour may have been more sparse, but the leads were played perfectly and the action carefully selected to ensure that the film's key elements remained the struggle, survival and rise of one ordinary boy.

7/10

Ted

Director: Seth McFarlane
Writer: Seth McFarlane
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth McFarlane

An impromptu trip to the cinema last week saw me watching, and being extremely entertained by, this summer's biggest comedy, Ted.

The first feature film from Family Guy creator, Seth McFarlane, was thankfully not as close to his brash and in-your-face TV show as expected. A few moments were slightly tedious such as a five minute fight between Wahlberg and his talking teddy bear, reminiscent of that ridiculous chicken fight in the show (my brothers continue to find that hilarious) , as well as the party with Sam “Flash Gordon" Jones. As a British teenager, this character meant nothing to me and seemed to please the film-makers more than an international audience.

Many gags were great though: jokes about pop culture (“...whether you're Frankie Muniz, Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber or a talking teddy bear, eventually nobody gives a shit"), amusing lines from the narrator (Patrick Stewart) a few shock laughs about 9/11 showed McFarlane was the writer but this film was more silly than offensive.

Mark Wahlberg was an impressive comedic lead, a highlight being the reeling off of white-trash American girl names (“Wait; was it any of those names with a “Lynn" after it?"). As a reasonably frequent viewer of Family Guy, I found the voice of Peter Griffin to be a little too present in Ted's speech. Though they made a joke about it, I would have preferred it if McFarlane had created a new voice for this character.

Though not a flawless comedy, I hadn't laughed that much in the cinema since The Hangover or Bridesmaids and compared to the trailers for other upcoming American comedies including “The Watch" and “That's My Boy", this definitely seems the best of the bunch.

7/10

A Clockwork Orange

“Welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, welly, well. To what do I owe the extreme pleasure of this surprising visit?"

 

1971
Director: Stanley Kubrick

Writers: Stanley Kubrick (screenplay), Anthony Burgess (novel)

Cast: Malcolm McDowell, Warren Clarke 

On my to-watch list for months, I finally got around to watching Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange last night after finishing the book yesterday morning. On the knowledge that the film had been withdrawn from British distribution upon release due to its disturbing nature, I was expecting an extremely difficult watch but was surprised to find this was not exactly the case. Some scenes were indeed very unsettling, but having read the book where some acts were even more violent, nothing was particularly unexpected.

Though a big fan of the book, I’m not about to complain about every single little detail that Kubrick decided to omit. I often find it frustrating when book lovers overly criticise a film adaptation because it is “not true to the book but adapt is the key word there. One must realise that cinema is a completely different medium to literature and that certain elements need to be changed to visually please and excite the audience. For example, though I initially winced about the differences in the scene where Alex goes to “home” and discovers that the owner, Mr. Alexander, was once a victim of the former’s crimes, Kubrick’s alterations actually made for better viewing. As Alex lies in the bathtub, we quietly hear the words of “Singing In The Rain”, once heard before as he attacked his new-found guardian. The audience automatically makes the connection and is left tense, to see if the man will discover the truth: a close-up of a hysterical face confirms he does. That said, the tension is more acute in the book as Alex attempts to cover up the clues he drops accidentally (“I thought you didn’t have a phone”) and would have worked well in the film. I also found the scene where Alex is assaulted by old ally Dim and his fellow police officer to be positively modified for the big screen. By lengthening the sequence and involving a frighteningly long stay in a water trough unmentioned in Burgess's novel, the audience is put on edge and continues to somehow sympathise with our violent yet charismatic narrator. 

I will probably now sound as if I am contradicting my earlier statement that I won’t criticise the changes but I found a few to be slightly unnecessary, especially given the size of the novel. Firstly, the film excludes the references to its title, showing how Alex has been made “a clockwork orange” by his aversion therapy. Though not vital, the fact that Mr. Alexander  created the title and that it stuck in Alex’s head during their first encounter was an important, intriguing part of the novel and served as another clue to their meeting that Alex attempts to conceal. 

Your  Humble Narrator, Alex

The most controversial change, though, occurred in the film's conclusion.  In the novel, the ending is optimistic; we see Alex growing out of his sociopathic tendencies, even after he is cured of his therapy, and deciding to lead a better life. In the film, he is seen collaborating with the autocratic government and the viewer is left unsure whether Alex will return to his villainous ways or not. Though the positive ending was satisfactory as a reader, I do not completely oppose to Kubrick's unintentional editing, as it seemed more realistic in the vision he put on screen. 

 Keeping the Nadsat dialect was vital, and it is used most effectively in Alex’s narration. A few words seemed to keep their English variation, but unlike the reader, the viewer is not given a glossary of terms and needs to be gradually introduced to this unique style. Though not all first-person narratives need be maintained in film format, it was necessary here and most effective during the film screenings. 

Though initially uncertain about the casting of Alex, his voice in particular was not what I had imagined, it was in the scenes after Alex goes to prison where I believe Malcolm McDowell portrayed him fantastically; the hospital scene with the Minister of The Interior feeding him being a favourite and another positive addition to the book. 

This was the first Kubrick film that I had seen, and I was therefore incredibly impressed. Though not a knowledgeable film critic, I appreciated the experimental aspects of the film: a close-up of Alex’s haunting face to start, the change to animation as the cat-woman’s face is about to be squashed, the slowing down and speeding up of various sequences. The use of music was particularly ingenious and not only did the classical music reflect upon our protagonist’s love for the genre, but it gave the film the satirical edge needed. 

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this film as a motion picture in its own right and also a impressive adaption of a classic novel. 

9/10 

The Dark Knight Rises

“There's a storm coming”

2012
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writers: Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, David S. Goyer
Cast: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Michael Caine, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman

No, I'm not just slow on the uptake, this was in fact my third viewing of the final instalment in the Dark Knight trilogy. After the adrenalin rush and excitement of the first viewing have faded away, I can now attempt to write a more impartial view on the...well, not exactly impartial, don't expect to find too many criticisms of  Nolan, a.k.a God, here.

With the release of The Dark Knight four years ago, a film often hailed as the best superhero film of all time, thrilling both audiences and critics alike, Nolan created the challenge to surpass himself. In the build up to The Dark Knight Rises' release, I thought this to be impossible and even though I don't believe it was fully achieved, the film rises to the occasion even more than I thought it could.

The running time of two hours and 45 minutes has been one of the main causes of criticism for the film but I have to say, I don't completely agree. On my second viewing, I thought that the pace of the first half was perhaps a bit slow, but this time I found each scene to be just as important than the last. A few moments around the half way mark are perhaps lengthy as our protagonist seems to take a back seat during his time in prison - a stay that could have possibly been shortened - but it was still necessary to see Bruce Wayne get back on his feet and find the strength, of body and soul, to return to Gotham and beat Bane. It is after his return that the film's pace really picks up and a the sense of urgency arises with shots of the ticking time bomb creating suspense and fear in the audience. This film more than its two predecessors really steals away the audience's faith in Batman and the masked greatness of Gotham  as one is really unsure if Batman can actually save his city.

The villain offered to us in Bane completely surpassed my expectations and is the reason for this loss of confidence in our anti-hero: Ra's Al Ghul and the Joker appear friendly compared to this beast. Not only is he written to appear everywhere and be behind every wrongdoing due to his meticulous planning but Hardy himself pulls out a great performance particularly with his bellowing voice; concerns about his voice are almost unfounded with only a few words dissolving away.

The other characters were also better than expected. The images and clips of Hathaway in the film's trailer did not do her justice as she added a sultry edge not yet seen in the trilogy. Gordon-Levitt as Blake was also a more interesting character and without giving away too many spoilers, I actually hope that Nolan doesn't get roped into a spin off by Warner Brothers.

The music was spectacular, as is to be expected from Zimmer, its crescendos creating suspense in dramatic moments and being effectively stripped away for emotional scenes with Bruce and Alfred as the latter's painful confessions echo through the walls of Wayne Manor. It is such scenes, Alfred's unsuccessful hopes for a better life for Bruce beyond the mask and a little bit of the classic fatherly banter we love ("Well you're welcome to try it, Alfred"), that give a special something to the trilogy's finale: emotion. Yes, we saw it in the other films as Bruce's parents and his true love die but it is here that we really seen the pain in Wayne's existence. As Nolan has dubbed the films themes: Fear, Chaos and Pain respectively.

I still hold The Dark Knight in higher esteem due to the thrill ride it gives the audience: the ups and downs, the unexpected deaths, the havoc the Joker causes along with his chilling performance and the comedic elements it entails. Amusing lines are not excluded here nor is the element of surprise (Marion Cotillard couldn't have just played the love interest, could she? ) and luckily it is the desire to reach the finish, the need to discover what happens to our Dark Knight that keeps the audience hooked. I'm glad to say, however, that even after discovering all of the above and starting the film again, it's still an exciting, epic conclusion to what I believe to be the best trilogy of our time.

9/10